Talk:Chris Heimerdinger

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chris Heimerdinger article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography C‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Latter Day Saint movement Unassessed

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

98.202.23.178

Who is this person? Anyone else noticed these edits? Thmazing (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told in the past that this is the IP address used by the subject of the article, Chris Heimerdinger himself. See here. As such, edits made by this IP address on this page should be assessed carefully, I should think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed the IP addressed used by Chris Heimerdinger. I agree that a careful assessment of edits done by Chris is necessary. I would advocate leaving the edits as they now stand, but adding whatever tags you may feel are necessary. The tags recently added to this article would be a good idea. After all, if Chris added it, the information must be based on something he has knowledge of that is not generally known to the public. I realize this constitutes original research, however, I think that adding whatever tags that may be needed should take care of that. Then, if a long period of time goes by without additional information being added, the tags could be removed. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to remove the information than the tags. However, what would be *best* is if he could add citations. The court document information, or somesuch. Thmazing (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These other court documents are not in the "public domain" as it is defined today ie verifiable by internet, but as Chris himself said, they can be found by editors with enough honesty and integrity to look. WHERE we might look, I don't know. But I do know they're out there. If the information about his original "conviction" can be included without any qualm from most editors, then any information overturning that decision ought to be included as well. Both are equally vaild, and the original information from both issues should be fairly easy to track down. If we fail to include the overturning, I feel we must in the same breath submit to the removal of the information about the original "conviction." Including one but not the other shows either a pro- or anti-Heimerdinger bias on our part, and such should not be the case on an objective encyclopedia like WP. In my opinion, it should be both or neither. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.... All I'll say is that just because something is online is no reason it can't be cited by case number or whatever (I'm not sure what's WP-preferred). All government documents are public domain, whether they're online or not (or technically public or not). No one owns them, in other words. Chris suggesting I don't have honesty or integrity when it would be easiest for him to put in the citations is disingenuous. Other than that, this is nothing we haven't hashed through before. Let's not do it again. Thmazing (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The "difference" between the two, of course (and to be clear), is that we can cite something. If our standard is court documents, let's have court documents. But when we don't have those for either, we're stuck with what we have: reports from reputable sources ie newspapers.

But I have to admit I'm a bit mystified how this came up again. I don't feel like I was doing him any dirt, I was just trying to keep the article clear and ask for sources.

I guess the thing to do, Jgstokes, is for you to go ahead and do this. It's obvious Chris just expects us to take his word (which we can't), but I imagine you could get the court citations and bring them to the article? Then he can be happy, you can be happy, I can be happy--Everyone can be happy! That seems like the best solution.

Until then, I don't think we can really suggest any removals or additions. Thmazing (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if Chris put the citations in (as he did in the past), someone would then hit him with original research complaints. Chris wasn't suggesting the name of ANYONE in connection with what he said. I quote: "Info is not available on internet, but can be verified by researchers with enough honestly and responsibility not to depend entirely upon the internet for research. A rare quality indeed." What he WAS saying was that the court dockets may be in the public domain, but they are not on the internet. And just because something is not on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. He was urging us to expand our horizons. He mentioned no names in particular in connection with this statement. If you feel that this statement is an affront to you, well, as they say, "only the hit bird flutters." I myself would presume to make no judgments about you, and neither would Chris. YOU, on the other hand, automatically assume that his words were directed at you, and stated that the assumptions you assumed he had were disingenuous. So what you were doing was interpreting what you thought he said as being aimed at you, when that was clearly not the case. Enough on that issue.

The court documents are available. I asked Chris once where they could be found in the event of just such an issue being raised again. Whether because he was busy dealing with other things, or whether the e-mail never got to him, or whether he decided to just drop the subject, I don't know. I could try to ask him again, but I make no promises. Chris still seems to be pretty upset (and rightly so) about the falsehoods that are being perpetuated in the public domain. I agree that a newspaper is what WP terms a "reputable source," however, the fact that there is more to this issue than they reported, and that they never did ANY follow-up about this story makes them biased by most other definitions except WP's definition. I'm not going to open up that one again, though.

Asking for sources is all well and good. That's our job as Wikipedians. However, there are WP policies preventing the inclusion of material which, though true, is not "verifiable." That's one thing I've continually beaten my head over. Every time the subject is brought up, I get another WP policy thrown in my face that "protects" information that is "verifiable" even though it may be slander, libel, and misinformation. THAT'S how the issue came up again. You challenged material added by Chris, which, though true, because it's unsourced, falls in the category of a violation of WP's policy on original research.

As nice and informative as WP is, it seems that the regulations do little or nothing to allow for the feelings of individuals who may be hurt by damaging material contained about them herein. It seems obvious that Chris is being singled out for this kind of mistreatment, because there are plenty of things floating around about other popular people (LDS Church leaders, for example), that, according to WP standards, are verifiable, even though they are untrue. None of those kinds of things are being included in corresponding WP articles, so it seems apparent therefrom that Chris is being unfairly singled out for this kind of "verifiable mud-slinging" treatment. It's a sad statement indeed that such a highly respected organization should have no regard whatsoever for the feelings of the individuals, or for the unwarranted taint on their reputations that come with the inclusion of such information.

Even if I got the court information, there would still likely be complaints about WP:OR, and it seems apparent that no matter what is said or done, there are NO WP policies whatsoever to protect Chris's reputation or his good name (what's left of it, that is, after the likes of Mike Collins and his kind have done all they could to taint it). Because I know EXACTLY what the outcome will be (based on past experiences of a similar kind relating to this same issue) I am reluctant to try to obtain the requested material. I will try, not because I enjoy having to defend a reputation that shouldn't have been tainted in the first place, but because I believe that the information about the judgment overturning belongs just as surely as everyone else maintains that the material about the original conviction belongs.

Just a word in conclusion: I'm sorry I opened my big mouth in the first place. If you go back far enough in the page history, you'll find that it was I who (reluctantly) suggested the inclusion of the information about his legal troubles. If I had kept my mouth shut to begin with, none of this would have happened, and Chris would be happy anyways. I'M to blame for the suggestion of its inclusion, but I had no idea that my doing so would spark a discussion that is still continuing today, nor did I have any idea that because of my stupid suggestion, biased and bigoted information would be permitted on WP. Perhaps that's why the protests to my objections since that time have been so strong. Since then, I have had a HUGE change of heart and mind frame. Where once I was reluctantly advocating its inclusion, now I am decidedly against just ONE side of the story being told. Silly me. I thought that when I made this reluctant suggestion, this information would be presented in a non-biased way, and that both sides of the story would be told. I'll never make this same mistake again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! What brought that on?

For the record, I first included this information not knowing that it had been discussed before. (You'll notice those conversations have been removed from the current version of the talk page.) And when I happened by a few months later and saw that it had been erased by a friend of the subject's I was irritated. Wikipedia is not about protecting people's feelings. It's about presenting facts about notable subjects. Once someone becomes notable, the rules change. Alas. (It's the same under law, incidentally. Public figures versus private figures and so forth.)

But thank you for knowing what was going on inside Chris's head when I was apparently so so wrong. Lucky one of us can read minds!

And I don't know of any rule that says information has to be already available online to be eligible for citation within Wikipedia. I see books and whatnot cited with some regularity. Here in this very article, for instance.

I know you feel someone (you don't name any names so I can't guess who you're talking about) is out to get Chris. I don't know who that is and I share your anger. It's not appropriate for rapscallions to use Wikipedia for drive-by character assassination! I'm just glad we are able to have friendly conversations with each other without getting disagreeable.

Anyway, I hope sometime you'll check out my other contributions to Wikipedia and realize that I'm really not treating Chris any differently than anyone else. Here's my basic MO: when I happen across an interesting bit of information that I think should be part of a Wikipedia article (whether it be an LDS writer, a modern painter, a government program, an Elizabethan play, an opera singer, or moshing), I put it in. If the source was online, I cite that. If it was print or radio or something else, I try to find it online. If I do, I cite the online version. If not, I cite my original. I happened across the information about Chris in question, thought it was interesting and worth mention, and put it in (citation included). Just as I later added other information that apparently isn't prone to casual interpretation as meanspiritedness.

The point is: thank you for not misinterpreting my intentions and making me out as some sort of bad guy here. It's a relief to know there are still bastions of civility in this crazy old world of ours. Thmazing (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What brought all this on was past experience. Every time I have expressed the feeling of being strongly in favor of putting in information about the overturning, I have had one WP policy after another thrown in my face proving that such information was not permissible for inclusion. I have often been beating my head against the proverbial wall over the feeling of some WP editors that the overturning cannot be mentioned unless it is verifiable, particularly in light of the fact that the news agencies reporting on the original conviction never bothered to do a follow-up and check their facts. At those times, WP editors who spoke out against me for defending Chris informed me that if information about the overturning was not in the public domain, it was not permissible for inclusion as far as WP was concerned. Some of those same frustrations I’ve been feeling since the last time this issue was raised came to the surface all over again. I realize fully now that I misdirected my renewed anger and frustration at you, and I hope you can forgive me.

You are correct that this information has been discussed before. When I reluctantly brought the issue up originally, I realized that it was permissible for inclusion, but suggesting that BOTH sides of the story be told. I was firm in my resolve that I wouldn’t write this section because I knew I would not treat it "objectively" as per WP standards. But I made a resolve to keep a close eye on this article in general and this section in particular and to object to any material I felt not only violated WP policy, but would serve to taint Chris’s reputation in the eyes of all those who might read this page. Chris was alerted to the discussion somehow (not by me), and figured out that it was I that he had known and worked with on his website forums before. He expressed his wishes at that point, pointing out several errors that were in the section as it stood, and how such additions would violate WP policy as he understood it, then respectfully requested that the information be either trimmed down (since this issue was such a small portion of his life) and that information about future overturnings be included, or that the section as a whole be eliminated. I pledged then that I would see that his respectfully expressed wishes were honored as long as they didn’t violate WP’s policy. At his request, the topic was deleted from the talk page, but it can be seen by going back in the page’s history. Believe you me, you are not the first person to point out that WP is not about protecting people’s feelings but presenting verifiable facts about notable subject. That’s something else I’ve beaten my brains out about quite frequently: WP has little or no regard for the damaging effect of false material about a subject on the viewpoint of those who are curious about the subject. I’m glad to see that you don’t necessarily agree with that. Perhaps someday, if there are enough editors like us, the policies will change to have a certain unbiased degree of concern for the feelings of individuals. Your irritation in both cases is understandable and agreed with.

The only reason I "know what was going on inside Chris’s head" was because he and I have kept in pretty frequent contact with each other since I raised this whole issue in the beginning. It has little or nothing to do with my being able to "read minds". Indeed, I have no such ability, nor do I desire to have it. Chris is my friend, and as such, he has told me things about this issue that are verifiable but not widely known. Because of the potential that the leak of such information could prove to damage those who oppose Chris (which he has no desire to do) he has respectfully requested that I only make known what he authorizes me to about this matter. That has been the guiding principle in what I have said and done in relation to this section, and it will continue to be so. If I were not one of Chris’s good friends, but merely just one of his many fans, I very much doubt he would have told me all that I currently know about this. And, if we weren’t such good friends, I’m sure he would not even have given me permission to say one word about what he told me. It’s a sacred trust I don’t intend to violate, and that is in part why Chris has authorized me to speak/edit for him on WP, because I know more about WP policy than he does, and he has confidence in my ability to violate neither WP policy or my friendship with him. It has nothing to do with "mind reading" and everything to do with my being a good friend of Chris and knowing all the facts as he related them to me.

I understand what you said about WP’s verifiability standards, and I accept what you said to be the truth. I am also not aware of any such policy that forbids the inclusion of information in books and/or other records that aren’t on the internet. The reason I said what I did about that is because of previously pent-up frustration about some WP editors who commented on this issue earlier that made the absurd statement that if it wasn’t online, it wasn’t acceptable for WP purposes. Again, sorry for my misdirected frustration, and hope you can forgive me.

I have often felt as though a few individuals here on WP have no other agenda in relation to this article than anti-Chris bias. I won’t name names because I have found that doing so subjects me to a personal attack for calling them out for attacking Chris. I refuse to open that can of worms. I’m glad you share my anger about this. Again, my frustration lies in the fact that whatever I say in defense of Chris and in relation to including material about the "conviction" being overturned gets inevitably shot down by yet another "policy" that I was unaware of up to that point. I’m glad that you understand my intentions as being friendly, and I hope that I have done nothing in any way to make you think that my intentions are unfriendly.

I know that you are not treating Chris any differently than you have treated other issues you’ve contributed to. I wish to commend you for your great work on WP in the past and say that I hope to see that you keep up the great work in the future. I appreciate your integrity and hope that will continue as well. I fully agree with what you said about citations, both on and off line. I am grateful that you are committed to sourced material in all WP articles, and I am convinced that if we search hard enough and in the right places, we will find verification for the overturning information that I feel ought to be in there. However, you will note that I said "we" and not just "I." I have been a fairly good source for Heimerinformation in the past because of my friendship with Chris, and once I hear back from him about where to start to look for this material, the search will begin in earnest. In the same breath, though, I think that you as someone who has done such great source work in the past would be able to help out a great deal with finding this information as well. I don’t know where to look, but perhaps you might. Additionally, if I am the only one searching for this material, some editors would contend that this violates WP's original research policy. So, I plead for your help in finding this information, if time allows you to offer such help. I will do all I can through working and communicating with Chris about this, but I can’t find the information solely on my own. Any help you are able and willing to give would be greatly appreciated, as it would also protect me from OR violation allegations.

You are more than welcome for my not misinterpreting your intentions. I assure you that you are in no way the bad guy here. Chris knows that as well. Unfortunately, but perhaps understandably, Chris has been subjected to so much bigotry and bias, not to mention gossip, slander, libel, and misinformation floating about in the public domain, that he has started to get defensive about it. Again, that’s to be expected. You can only be pummeled so many times before you finally give in to the urge to fight back and counter-attack. I can only apologize profusely on Chris’s behalf and assure you that he didn’t mean it the way it sounded. Understandable and perhaps even excusable, but I’m sorry that you had to be the recipient of the anger he has tried so hard not to give in to. In general, Chris has been perhaps TOO civil about all this. You can only put so many holes in the dam before it breaks. Sorry for the cliches, and again accept my apologies on Chris’s behalf that you had to be the target of the dam breaking. Best wishes. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jg. Rest assured that if I find anything for the other side, I will certainly add it. Thmazing (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Who is Thumper10 and why do they continue to remove changes that have been made over the last several months? Whoever this person is, they have removed almost all of the references several times. They have removed the sub titles and information that is based on the news reports. Whoever this is they have also removed almost everything that was added by thmazimg even though that information was discussed here on the talk page.

In going back throught the history of this article the actions of Thumper10 seem to match those of jgstokes and the subject, Chris Heimerdiner, himself. Could Thump10 be one of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.168.82 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. That's a very interesting question. Thmazing (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

Just to explain what I'm doing here, I came originally in a response to a message on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. I've got a fair amount of experience in editing biogs of people who have been controversial in one way or another. I am continuing to watch the page and want to see a neutral well-sourced article. If you disagree with any edits I have made I shall be pleased to discuss them here or perhaps on my talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your flag that you noted from noticeboard was made at the request of 216.49.181.128, who has been identified as a party currently in lawsuit with the subject of this article. We disagree with many of your content changes, particularly removing info on songs and other pertinent details. Changes with regard to form are supported. Content is not. Any material that is judged to be non-verifiable should be identified and sources will be provided. This article is under constant assault from individuals motivated by rancor, anti-religious sentiment, and those who are in direct legal contention with the article's subject. Your initial edit was overwhelmingly non-helpful. Slash and burn. Scorched earth. If you truly wish to present a neutral approach that will improve the content of this article, be more communicative regarding each and every edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumper10 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I really don't think it was "overwhelmingly non-helpful". But if you want, we can work point by point. Of course, I'm not going to be influenced either way by whether there has been editing by someone with a conflict of interest. Any edits I make are completely independent of that. Since you yourself may also have a conflict of interest, I'm going to place a note straight away on the conflict of interest noticeboard. Now, to take one point at a time. I'm going to take the list of songs on the CD out again. The fact that the subject produced a CD is notable. The whole list of songs is not in the least necessary. We have Amazon for that kind of thing. Thanks for coming to the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find such lists on another Amazon or another site, then you are welcome to remove the info. Otherwise, such info is genuinely of interest to those who review this page. Don't get bent out of shape, sister. If you notice "overwhelmingly non-helpful" was revised and removed from original post. You're too quick on the draw. Don't be influenced by emotion. If you wish to police this article to keep those with "conflicts of interest" at bay, such involvement is welcome. Just retain that neutrality. It is known that the subject of this article has already employed legal counsel to insure that defammatory information is not re-included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.23.178 (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to undo the removal of song titles, but I see it has already been done. Listing these song titles was done with the specific motive of distinguishing such cuts from music written for this project which was NOT created by the artist who is the 0subject of this page. It is therefore pertinent for viewing by those with an interest in learning about this subject.Thumper10 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with Thumper10. There is nothing contained in this article at the present time that violates neutrality, is unhelpful or unverifiable. How about you get off of your high horse itsmejudith and look at the overall content of things, or rather, spend your oxygen editing something that really does need to be edited rather than something you just felt like jumping in on. They teach reading in Elementary school for a reason these days I'm told, but it appears that its not a skill needed for this site. --FireandFlames17 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be civil to you if you'll be civil to me. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that civility is called for. It's clear that many, including me, are highly interested in the accuracy and fairness of this article. However, having read recont posts on Heimerdinger's website passagetozarahemla.com, I reposted info that was cut for unknown reasons, perhaps because in some kind ensuing edit war the original reference that was provided was inadvertently (or advertently) deleted. Information seemed benign and interesting to anyone who reads this article. Other changes applied by editor Scott MacDonald much appreciated.Thumper10 —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, we don't include information from a blog. It isn't just about reliability, it is that we are not a fansite. If third parties are reporting the author's future plans, then they are perhaps relevant worth this encyclopedia including - but we don't mirrors an authors blogging. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I would like to thank all the new people who've showed up on this page for bringing a heightened rigor to what has been a long, slow march to verifibility and general goodarticleness. Thmazing (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, popping in as an uninvolved admin. Folks, for best results, please comment on the content, and not the contributors, thanks. --El on ka 05:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info about his mother coming from his blog

The following text is in the Family section:

Heimerdinger's mother, Anna Cecelia, was baptized by Heimerdinger into the LDS Church in May 2005. He also accompanied her in her first attendance to an LDS Church temple in December 2007. She also has a bit part in Heimerdinger's movie, Passage to Zarahemla, as a "laughing old lady."

The reference is to the Passage to Zarahemla blog.

This is really on a fine line with verifiability. Self-published sources—which a blog is—are not to be used as sources for information on third-parties. Based on that, it's not appropriate to use it as a source about his mother. On the other hand, it could be argued that the items really all relate to Chris directly:

It's unstated, but the conclusion is that he led her to the Church.
He accompanied her to a temple (and as I understand it, getting admitted to a temple is a Big Deal to Mormons).
He got her a bit part in his movie.

If the reference were to a biography of Chris—a secondary, non-self-published source—I would not have objections with this item being included. Because it's sourced to a blog, it's really in a gray area to me. —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much ado about something that should not provoke such sentiments. Your work is much respected, C.Fred, but blogs are frequently used in Wikipedia--especially title blogs from a website owner or controller. What Wikipedia has determined to be patently questionable are replies to blogs. But this is written by the source subject, and the info is harmless. Really, considering the import of the edit, this whole discussion seems a waste of energy. The info now seen on the page does not go beyond what the subject has stated, allowing the reader to judge what is written without ad-ons or assumptions. Let it stand. Hey, I personally find it interesting. And Wikipedia should always be source that offers interesting biographical information to a reader--so long as it can be verified. Thumper10

We also need evidence that the information is notable. We don't just mirror someone's personal blog posts - that's for fansites. If third party sourced are not interested in these details, nor are we. A blog is a primary source, and should not be used without secondary sources to show that the information is being noted.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proper references

Links to webpages that promote a book are almost always unacceptable per WP:EL. Book reviews that appear in a respected newspaper or magazine would usually be acceptable. See WP:V and WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it really wouldn't matter what is defined as "respected" because certain editors will inevitably find problems with those sources too. For a site that promote neutrality, this place seems to be dripping of bias against the subject. If this is the way that games are going to be played on here, then I have every intention of going to every article I find here and flagging every single reference, just because I might not "respect" that source. Why don't you take a look at some of the more "notable" pages that are supposedly found on here, and I think you'll find that MOST of these articles are written in the same fashion as this current one here. Yet, no one seems to have a problem with the format or citations or anything else about these. Again, the lack of neutrality on here is sickening. Even is something is made neutral, it is then flagged for improper sourcing. I daresay a good part of some of the editors on here that keep reverting changes wouldn't know a good source if they saw it!--FireandFlames17 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." - WP:TALK. Let's keep the discussion focused. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

I moved the following here for discussion: --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

In 2006 Heimerdinger was fined $300 and one year probation for the misdemeanor violation "Criminal Mischief". As part of the probation he was required to take a domestic-violence and anger-management class.[1]

Discussion

Yes, it is sourced, but I still think it's inappropriate per WP:BLP, especially WP:NPF. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't certain it was relevant, but my uncertainty was more about a possible need to have a neutral reliable source place emphasis on the event and contrast it with any cultural relevance that the authors background and subject matter might bear on it.

I don't think this is a District Attorney drunk driving, but it's not necessarily as automatically irrelevant as a professional athlete blowing a stop sign either. In short I think it's debatable, and as such, requires a strong citation as to it's relevance.

I read your links, and I'm sorry but I don't see any policy proscription against carrying it, could you outline the policy argument against it? Thanks76.202.249.62 (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that my link did not meet the standard I proposed, "requires a strong citation as to it's relevance", and I'm not lobbying for its inclusion.76.202.249.62 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPF:

"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. "

"Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the second section you quote has bearing, as such I agree that "special care" should be given when considering it's inclusion. I think a reputable reliable source noting the relevance of the private act having a bearing on the public work would possibly meet that standard. None exists. I don't think your first quoted section is germane, the possibility exists in cases similar to this that private acts relate to a subjects notability. I'll mark it as resolved - not relevant, if no one objects...76.202.249.62 (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content Tags

Of the three content tags, can the two be removed? 76.202.249.62 (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not until we get them resolved. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you list what still needs to be resolved? Thanks76.202.249.62 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides everything already mentioned? As long as editors continue to restore poorly sourced and unsourced material, we're not making much progress. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone can address your concerns without you specifying what needs to be resolved. I'd love to help but I do need to know what you object to. 76.202.249.62 (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then read this talk page, get familiar with the policies and guidelines cited, and ask questions in response to the objections already given. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it all, and am familiar with the policies and guidelines and have already clearly indicated that I believe I've met them. I am unable to guess from here.

There are only a few sentences in the entire article:

"Early Life" 6 sentences.

"Tennis Shoe Adventure Series" also just 6 sentences.

"Film" 4 sentences.

Which sentences do you feel are still in violation? Thanks.76.202.249.62 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please format the references properly, or list them here so they can be more easily reviewed? Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your only objection? Format references to your standard and the tags can be removed? 76.202.249.62 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement - Continued

Please do not use primary sources or Heimerdinger's own words as sole sources for sections or large amounts of information. Per WP:V, I'm removing unverified information and information dependent entirely on primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PROVEIT --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting

I'm pretty busy atm or I'd do it myself:

Use <ref>REFERENCE</ref> for unique references.
Use <ref name="abc">REFERENCE</ref> to name a reference, then <ref name="abc"/> for each additional instance of that reference.

See WP:CITE --Ronz (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?

I was assuming that Heimerdinger would meet WP:BIO, but given the problems find any reliable sources at all about him, I think we need to be sure that it's clear we've met the notability critera and that we follow WP:NPF closely by including "only material relevant to their notability". --Ronz (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal: Tennis Shoes Adventure Series to be merged into this article

Proposed: Merger of Tennis Shoes Adventure Series into this entry about the author.76.202.249.62 (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree:~~ I was going to propose the same thing in the hope that we can eventually come up with some sources for some of it. Doesnt appear to meet WP:BK. --Ronz (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it clearly meets the standards in the policy you linked WP:BK. Specifically numbers, 1&3. He also meets the threshold standard and, as an indicator of notability, is rated by Amazon as a top 100 author in books in the category Mormonism. I just felt the two subjects might be better combined for efficiency - it will be interesting to see other editors take on this. 76.202.249.62 (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: While I think this article will discuss the book series if we can find sources, there is no sourced content to merge. I think it would be better to start from scratch. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: But for different reasons, both articles could do with work, so do some. "Start from scratch" seems to be a code for delete rather than spend the efforts in improving. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Start from scratch" means that we find sources and write from those, rather than cut and paste from pr material, then look for sources to justify it. --Ronz (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Its a well known fact that the author's main website is currently down and a new one is under construction. Some people do have access to it and the information therein, and therefore the source is verifiable - even if another editor does not have access to it. There is also enough information provided on the book covers and contents of this author's series to allow for a separate article. Also, notability is in the eye of the beholder. For someone that is a member of the Mormon religion, Mr. Heimerdinger is a very notable author. One could contend that any author who is not read by a given individual is not a notable author just because the said individual does not read that series. The argument does not hold water. As far as this series is concerned, there is plenty of source material out there to cite things, one just has to be willing to do the work to get it!--FireandFlames17 (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There is also enough information provided on the book covers and contents of this author's series to allow for a separate article." See WP:SELFPUB.

"Also, notability is in the eye of the beholder." See WP:BIO--Ronz (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned multiple times now, if the material cannot be verified, it doesn't belong in the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I am going to disagree for several of the same reasons listed above. As stated in several of the other discussions on this page, some of the sources simply have to be verifiable - be it by one or many editors. I can say that FireandFlames17 is fairly correct in their arguments, though not necessarily his or her approach on making those arguments. I say this because I am a former administrator of Mr. Heimerdinger's website in question. I have fairly regular contact with the individual in question, and he has stated to me several times that he gets several questions about various topics on a regular basis, and has stated that many of them he has looked up out on the web and they are there. What is not on the web is definitely available publicly if people are willing to look for it. As a prominent author in the LDS market, there is much information available on Mr. Heimerdinger. After having read through many of these discussions, it appears that there are a number of editors spinning things in circles, without ever really citing any specific problems. I'm sure that I have the ability to track down whatever source is necessary to verify information. Conversely, I would need to know exactly what needs to be verified in order to track down that information. I believe that's some of the same arguments that have been presented here previously, perhaps just not in the correct tone. I understand that there are a number of editors on Wikipedia that feel it is necessary to adhere to rigid guidelines, but there is really a time and a place for everything. From what I read here it appears that there are two "sides" to this whole "war" that's going on. I have no intention of taking either side - as it would be difficult not knowing who belongs where. I could easily make assumptions as to which side is which, but I will not in an effort to stay as neutral as possible. It does appear that there are a couple of editors who seem to be opposed to any kind of changes whatsoever, and a couple of other editors that are okay with changes, but insist on having very precise references. It appears that both sides are perhaps taking this to a bit of an extreme, so I'd like to see what I can assist with. That said, if someone would like to provide me with a specific issue or concern, I will see what I can do to come up with a reference or refute it.--Pianoeagle1903 (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the Publisher of an Author

Publishers are noted when discussing books and authors due to the reputations that they bring, it is akin to knowing which league or team they "play for". Here is a snippet from a paper discussing the concept that an imprint actually means something and that that knowledge of who the publisher is conveys information relevant to the work[2]:

Librarians affirm the importance of the publisher's reputation because they know how much the publisher can add to the quality of a published book, ...The reputation of the publisher serves as an indispensable shorthand in book selection. Rarely is there enough time to assess each monograph for quality or to wait for reviews to appear. Indeed, the publisher's name often provides the only known quantity that selectors have to use in making the decision. It is a necessary shorthand because selection book-inhand usually is not an option. Recent advances in Web technology now allow a selector to check the table of contents or to read a summary, but this is time-consuming. The author is, of course, another piece of information available to the selector, but the author's name may be completely unknown, as is the case with most first-time authors. One also can search to see whether the author has published other monographs, but the process soon becomes circular: with whom has he or she published, and what reputations do those publishers have?

Whether an author, or work, is published by Knopf, Ballantine Books or Little Brown is of importance and notable. There are even awards for publishers (Batchelder Award)....17:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but we're writing an encyclopedia article about Heimerdinger, and because he's barely notable, we're making sure that we follow NPOV, OR, and BLP carefully so as to not make the article look like an advertisement anymore. --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense Ronz, but just because you don't consider someone notable, that doesn't mean that they aren't. We are indeed trying to write an encyclopedic article, but that becomes very difficult when there is an individual or more who is unable to maintain any sort of neutrality concerning the subject and is ceaseless in finding fault with any type of change or "lesser known" information added to the article. The reasons encyclopedias come about is to provide information that is accurate and may not be always well-known or easily found. If things were easily found and common knowledge, then we would have no need for encyclopedias now would we?--FireandFlames17 (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RONZ, Please explain which part of "NPOV, OR, and BLP" you believe listing a publisher violates? 76.202.249.62 (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments in the above discussion. I am also in confusion as to what the issue is here after attempting to read through everything.--Pianoeagle1903 (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the material is purely promotional in nature, not supported by any independent sources, and not related to Heimerdinger's notability. See WP:UNDUE, WP:PSTS, WP:NPF. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with Ronz on this one. Where there is a bibliography it is appropriate to add the dates and publishers of the works. If all are from the same publisher then it would be better to note that at the top or bottom of the bibliography section. Now I am going to make some minor edits of a wikification nature (the reason I came to this article in the first place). Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The material is supported by Amazon, as well as any bookseller or library. The name of the Publisher will always be found in any dewey decimal system listing or bibliography. Your listing of multiple wiki policies has no bearing on this - and your inability or unwillingness to actually discuss your policy based objections in any substantive fashion is telling. The onus is on you to make an argument. Initials on a page are meaningless without the supporting argumentation.76.217.90.97 (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Properly wikified, the basic information about the publisher may be fine. The information currently in the article is far too much. Let's see what you come up with. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but it still seems gratuitous. I've looked through other article on authors of book series and none of them give such prominence to publishers. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an inside note to those questioning the length and "prominence" to the publishers: The LDS church is currently the fifth largest church in the United States. As such, there is a larger amount of followers and those people seeking information about some of its members who have grown to some prominence within society than many people realize. The publisher listed for Mr. Heimerdinger is about as prominent within the LDS culture as studios such as Paramount and LucasFilms are for other media across the country and throughout the world. As far as length goes, I don't believe that there is a relevant argument against it. Other authors, media, etc. could have longer articles on the Wiki, however, many editors have not chosen to add that information - either because of the difficultly asserting the validity of such information - due to it being published in a wide array of locations, or simply because they don't feel like taking the time to expand on certain things. The fact that there are editors that are willing to find the information, cite it, and publish it on a page such as this is testament that Mr. Heimerdinger is in touch with the public enough and prominent enough to be considered "interesting." My apologies to those that disagree, however I do have a fair amount of knowledge of this given my interaction with the public on his behalf. In short: I don't feel that "length" is a measurable standard, and my opinion is that as long as it can be properly cited, without controversy, and within said standards, then I see no reason for exclusion of such material.--Pianoeagle1903 (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I seem to be doing some of the more recent "heavy-lifting", allow me to address this comment just in case I am being implicitly referenced by it, "The fact that there are editors that are willing to find the information, cite it, and publish it on a page such as this is testament that Mr. Heimerdinger is in touch with the public enough and prominent enough to be considered "interesting."

I've never heard of the author or his books, and I don't believe I've ever even met a Mormon. The real fact that Editors are willing to be what, in this case, is probably the Devils Advocate has everything to do with the Wikipedia project and its goals. That the subject is interesting and notable is wholly separate from any subjective opinion on the quality of the work, it's merits or any personal opinions regarding the culture the people or ideas emanate from and is primarily directed at.76.217.90.97 (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]